Posted by dorayme on 06/02/06 08:28

In article <tr55l3-9oh.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
Toby Inkster <usenet200605@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> Mark Parnell wrote:
>
> > To judge whether something is perfect, you must have a perfect standard
> > to compare it to.
>
> I think that's a rather useless definition of perfection. Something that
> is perfect should be judged perfect by all who perceive it.

Both are circular characterizations [1] as expressed. But Mark's
can be recovered to some respectability:

There may be no better idea of perfection than something
measuring up to something else. This other thing forms the
standard. Perfection in this guise is but qualitative identity.
Thus Bush is closer to perfection in respect to Hitler than
Franklin D. Roosevelt.

But Toby's idea cannot be saved, far too postmodernist relative
for that. Trust me.

[1] using the very term in the explanation that you are
explaining.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]